John Page

I dispute that relativism implies or necessitates curcular reasoning. Your reasoning is not at all clear.
Objectivist theories appear to tout the primacy of reason and logic without any proof that these human processes are reliable. Assuming that the axioms of objectivism are being held by you as absolute truths, your objectivism is a form of absolutism.
Didn't see any disproof yet. Relativism is auto-correcting, depending on your point of view.
Please attend to what I have posted; I have made no assertion that a truth that is evident to me is absolute. This being the case your argument is irrelevant and does more to refute absolutism than relativism.
What! You have invented or introduced this "circularity" notion. I have never used that term in this thread so your claim your fabrication and is false to boot.

Cheers, John

Primal

That's easy: the latter is right(Pope does not have primacy in any supernatural sense), the person can know through the evidence. Contradictory statements violate logic and are thus false.

Primal

Not relativism per se but your own personal methods do John.


I said it was fundamentally disproven i.e. disproven a priori.


You don't have to verbatim, it follows from the content of your thought.




You said relativism and absolutism(matters concerning the nature of evidence) can be checked for correctness via that evidence, which is a form of circular reasoning.

John Page

Such a weak, unsubstantiated reply, I'm not even going to bother. Checking for coherence is not circularity.

Cheers, John

Keith Russell

Hugo said:
When you've finished laughing, Keith, perhaps you'd care to take on Kantian's and my arguments that denying the possibility of knowledge/truth does not constitute a knowledge/truth claim, particularly in the correspondence formulation?

Hugo, before I could refute such an argument, I'd have to be exposed to it. I've heard unsubstantiated claims, and semantic side-stepping, that "denying the possibility of knowledge/truth does not constitute a knowledge/truth claim", but I've never read a shred of valid evidence to support this.

Any time you'd care to share one, though, I'm more than happy to read it.

Keith.

Hugo Holbling

Am i supposed to take this seriously? You think Rorty - the pragmatist - is anti-science? That Derrida or Putnam are even discussing it? Do you suppose that even if all antifoundationalists got all "basic scientific facts wrong", it would have any impact on their philosophical critique of foundationalism? Perhaps if you had the slightest of grasps on contemporary philosophy of science, you'd appreciate that antifoundationalism is saying much the same thing; alas, it's evident that you and Keith haven't the faintest idea what you're talking about.

As for "Sokhel", i'm going to assume you mean Sokal. Your conclusion is a non sequitur; indeed, if you'd studied the "entire movement" you so quickly denigrate, you'd hopefully be less hasty to try this "baby with the bathwater" dismissal. :banghead:

Start a new thread if you want to discuss Sokal and justify your absurd pronouncements.

I can't say i'm surprised by this dodging. If you'd bothered to read this thread, you'd have seen Kantian's argument already. I've posted many quotes explaining why Putnam's claim does not require a "God's-eye view", mostly based on the so-called linguistic turn. I refered you to Derrida previously, in particular his comments on the play of differance. In the Absolute Truth thread, i posted a link showing (according to Davidson) why the correspondence theory is dead. In the Epistemology and Ontology thread, i explained how your interpretation of the claim "there is no truth" is not the only one.

In the light of all these, plus your promise previously to read some antifoundationalists before holding forth in such a silly manner, i can see no point in continuing dialogue with you. Please PM me when i can count on your making an effort again, if such a day should come.

:banghead:

Keith Russell

Hugo:

And you called my post a dodge?

Keith.

Keith Russell

Greetings:

http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/...int.php?num=12

Keith.

John Page

This quote was attributed to Simon Blackburn as Professor of Philosophy at Trinity College, Cambridge.

While I found the humor at the beginning of the article both entertaining and relevant, the text contained no serious argumentation and a half-baked example of Rosie the Relativist. Based on the text given I would like to take Professor Blackburn's own words above to illustrate the vigilance one must practice in order to guard against the cancer of absolutist practices. Cardinal Ximenez of Spain must have been proud of him.

Cheers, John

John Page

No, I didn't, I meant
Dialetheism which you can see from this link to Stanford's Philosophy site.

Cheers, John